After weeks of procrastinating, I'm finally ready to write about a fascinating and chilly conversation between Glenn Greenwald and Bill Keller. Greenwald is embarking on a new media adventure with an eBay executive and Keller is the former Executive Editor of the NY Times. Their conversation tackles major issues in journalism today: at it's heart was a deep divide over views of media - and how each perceives what the other does - wrapped up in some personal vendetta stuff. I have thoughts on the conversation.
I should start by saying my newsroom experience is limited to a semester in the basement of The Mac Weekly, the college newspaper for my alma mater Macalester. These were great times, working until ungodly hours putting together columns. It's from this experience, taking a couple media studies classes, and being an avid news reader that I formed my thoughts, and invite yours.
I would frame Greenwald versus Keller is a question of stenographer versus investigative journalist. Stenography, I would define, is the classic reporting model: this happened, she said, he said, a couple sentences about how it connects to XYZ, done. The vast majority of articles today resemble this form. It's simple, efficient, and effective for what it's trying to do: inform the reader that something happened. But the criticisms of this model are lengthy. Among them is the perception that the two sides presented are a) the only to sides, b) on equal standing, and c) truth-telling.
On the other side is what I would call investigative journalism. This is the stuff that tries to expose something. Usually it's based less on an event of the last 24 hours, but rather bringing to light a deeper issue. I would classify all of the NSA information the Guardian, the Washington Post, and others have released to fall under this realm. Similarly, one of the best pieces of modern journalism I have read falls into this category - this 10,000 word piece in the NY Times from 2009. (Seriously, who writes or even commissions 10,000 word pieces anymore?)
What I felt was unfair in Glenn and Bill's letters was Glenn's presumption that the NY Times doesn't write investigative journalism. Glenn referenced several stories that were delayed because of national security concerns from the White House, and took those delays as a bow to powerful forces. To Glenn, this is highly treasonous to journalism - the truth is sacrosanct, and to delay is fake objectivity. By delaying, they showed that their allegiance was to the White House, objective reporting or not.
With that said, in the objective-partisan disagreement, I tend to prefer a transparent view in which journalists include themselves in the story. In simple, this supports Glenn's argument. I agree with him when he writes, "A journalist who is petrified of appearing to express any opinions will often steer clear of declarative sentences about what is true, opting instead for a cowardly and unhelpful 'here’s-what-both-sides-say-and-I-won’t-resolve-the-conflicts' formulation." Rather, a journalist who is clear about their role in the story is able to convey the story and any implicit biases they bring.
But there's a big part of the objectivity argument that neither mentioned, which is the bias of inclusion. This happens at many levels. To understand inclusion bias, I want to talk about quantum physics for a second. There's a really fascinating experiment called the double slit experiment. What scientists learned is that matter acts differently when it is observed; the act of observing affects the outcome. Bringing this back to journalism, I would argue the same thing happens - people act differently when observed. As a personal story, a local station was doing a story about pedestrians using crosswalks. I happened to be using the crosswalk when they were filming, and they asked me if they could film me. Suddenly, I'm acting differently - standing taller and sucking my gut in, looking both ways (I really should do that every time), waiting for a plenty big gap in the cars, etc. And in they end they never even used my footage! But the act of being observed changed my action.
So, when a reporter is writing up a story, which people they include affects the story. Which quotes they use, pictures attached, and words to describe. The reporter is trying to make the story say something, and they and their editor are in change of what makes the cut.
At a more macro level, the inclusion bias applies to which stories reporters are assigned to report on to begin with. It's here that Pope Francis comes in: "How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?" Yet should we really be surprised that there is a selection bias? Not when you consider the underlying issue - newspapers need to make money, people with money are probably more concerned with the stock market than the unknown homeless person, and so the newspaper ultimately tries to meet the audience where they're at.
I would argue that we ultimately need both; We need the stenographers and the recorders. The vast amount of knowledge, events, actions, relationships - these are things we should be capturing. Anyone who has come into an organization with poor institutional knowledge appreciates that. But we also need the investigative reporting. Watergate is the go-to example, but there are so many more. Edward Snowden's contributions to investigative journalism have been immense this year, allowing for a new understanding of government surveillance. The best way to ensure that both of these things occur is to remove the profit motivation. Stenography is a public service, and in my view should be paid for publicly. We need the places where we go to see sports scores, wedding announcements, death announcements, and events around town. Investigative journalism is also a public service, contributing to swift changes in public opinion and holding individuals, institutions, and systems accountable. But when tied to a profit model or beholden to maintaining good relationships, we get examples like Greenwald's, of stories that have been delayed in deference to White House administrations. In a profit-driven system, I genuinely wonder if The Washington Post would ever write an article about the harsh working conditions of its new owner, Jeff Bezos' company.
No comments:
Post a Comment